What president this century has acted like the Constitution means anything? Or the current congress, who tried to conduct/sabotage foreign policy (constitutionally that's the president's job) by inviting Netenyahu. And let's face it, the republican majority in congress is full of bible-thumpers.

Until such time as someone with standing makes a complaint, there is no threat of legal action. Have they, in fact, refused service to a gay couple? Here's what actually happened:

In other words, it's a purely hypothetical situation, one that has never in fact happened, and they are under NO legal threat, since they haven't actually done so, so nobody has standing to sue.

So, please get your FACTS straight, before claiming that they are under a legal threat. Show at least one incident where they have refused service to a gay couple (never happened) and the potential plaintiffs (there are none) are threatening legal action (there is no such threat).

Talk about purposefully taking my point completely out of context and then claiming something I never said. Here's my text: "Nobody is forcing others to enter into a same-sex union. Just like pro-choice people aren't forcing the pro-lifes to line up and get abortions. But keep in mind that in many of those states, a black marriage to a white person was not just "not considered a marriage" - it was illegal. Marriage is defined solely by the law. Religious definitions have nothing to do with it, or we'd have polygamy, forced child marriage, etc. If you don't like the definition, that's entirely your problem. But your insistence on forcing YOUR definition onto others (by either refusing to recognize their situation, or treating them differently) shows a lack of respect. Same as people discriminating against biracial couples. "

No, there aren't. Take a highly unpopular, inflammatory stand, some people are going to use it to post anonymous threats on the internet for the lulz. That's how the Internet works - dysfunctionally. Until the police are called in to investigate and find that the threats are credible, what's the big deal? If they haven't made a complaint to the police, then obviously they think the threats are hollow, and it's just hand-waving to get more media attention. It worked, too - they collected enough money to retire.

So, you're 0 for three.

As for the "threat of legal action", it's non-existent, since it requires them to have actually refused to make a pizza for a gay couple. No plaintiff - no legal action. That's how it works.

I notice you didn't repeat this claim: "While you are welcome to call your (or any other) union "marriage", you can not (or should not be able to anyway) force others to humor you. "

Why? Because it's dead wrong. Going around telling people that a same-sex couple "aren't really married" when they are is defamatory.

So, I guess transsexuals have been a protected class for decades because you can't discriminate on the basis of a person's sex :-) Ditto Intersex.

(actually, the Canadian courts have long held this position, that discrimination based on birth sex is illegal because it's discrimination against someone based on sex.)

Part of the academic "crisis" is that people are catching on and a university education is no longer a golden ticket.

FTFY

And just like monetary inflation devalues money, grade inflation devalues the worth of a degree. So you're spending much more for something worth much less.

Patently false. Otherwise, they wouldn't have needed to bloat up their CS program so quickly the lat few years. It's not like all of a sudden people applying are 3x better than they were just a couple of years ago.

Actual Executive Order

Nothing there says criminal penalties.

Also, it says that the actors must be outside of the United States. Remind me again, but Snowden did all of his stuff inside of the United States, right?

As usual, non-lawyers read something think it means something that makes them upset, and it spreads and no one actually sits down to read the actual law.

No link? [citation needed]

Not when you can get kickbacks from the products and people you interview.

The baker refused to bake it because of some religious believe about GNU, and is now retired thanks to 842,592 on gofundme. Suckahs!